Everyday situations present us with unique challenges. We find ourselves dealing with new problems all the time. In working to resolve these issues people need to behave with integrity. Are they trying to right a wrong or find a bonanza? When these stories wind up in the courtroom, the resolution is fair.
Marion needed to transport a horse to a competition for her granddaughter. The transport company is owned by Chip. When the trailer was opened at the competition, the horse was lying down. The horse was injured during the trip. As soon as Marion learns the horse cannot compete, she finds another horse. Her granddaughter was able to successfully compete. Why are we in court? Marion wants Chip to pay for all of the expenses for both horses, the injured horse and the replacement horse, transport fees and competition fees. She does not have a clear answer when she is asked to explain why Chip should have to pay for the expenses of both horses. Why should she get a bonanza? She is only entitled to the money she can prove she lost because of the negligence of Chip's company. Why should her granddaughter get a free ride? She feels that Chip's company was negligent while securing the horse in the trailer. In order to prove this, she needs to have evidence. She has her husband tell the court that a horse would never lay down in a horse trailer. He should know he has transported horses for 15 years. This is not evidence. Now, Chip's daughter explains she has been doing this for years and it can happen. It may not be common, but she has seen horses lay down in the trailer. Chip explains that the chain is left loose, so if the horse does lay down, their neck is not broken. Since Marion cannot prove her case, she does not win. To Marion's surprise, Chip has countersued for 2 additional transports. Even though Marion was unhappy with him in August, she used his company in October and November. On these two occasions, she did not pay him. She claims she had to use his service since the horse farm only contracts with his company. They did not switch companies when the horse was injured. She was not able to pay because she fell on hard times. She did not make any attempt to make payments on the bill. The court finds that Marion is responsible to pay Chip for the services provided. It makes you wonder if Chip would have brought her to court on his own or if he just took this opportunity to countersue? Why would Marion think she did not have to pay for any of the services she received? What do you think? For those that are wondering, the horse sustained scrapes to her leg and one of her back legs was swollen.
Christian and Nicole rented an apartment together. They both signed the lease and they shared expenses. Christian is suing Nicole for $2000.00. This amount is for a loan, rent and money that was stolen. Christian had a promissory note signed for the loan, but was unable to find it for court. The rent was from December, that was deferred to January as a birthday gift. Nicole moved out suddenly in January and did not pay the rent for December or January. There was money missing from Christian's room. She is convinced Nicole stole it. Knowing that Christian dd not see Nicole steal the money or have any evidence to prove the theft makes you think she is not going to win this portion of the case. Well, Nicole starts to lie about everything. The answers she gives the Judge contradict the written answers she provided to the court. She does deny that she stole the money. Unfortunately, since she lies about the rent and the loan, she shows her true character. Once someone lies in court, nothing they say can be believed. Christian wins the case, but is very sad to have lost her girlfriend.
Konstantine's car was damaged in an accident. He made the decision to pay for the repair himself and not go through the insurance company. He takes his car to Nakhman's repair shop. After the repairs were done he claims he returned many times since there were still problems with the car. He does not have any documentation for the return visits. According to the owner of the shop, he picked the car up in June and did not complain until October. We also learn he recommended the shop to his uncle. How unhappy was he if he sent his uncle to the shop? Konstantine has paperwork that he generated and had a mechanic sign. It listed old parts that were used for repair and repairs that were not done or done incorrectly. This paperwork was not created by the mechanic. It did not serve as true evidence. The Judge tries to get more information from Konstantine. On several occasions, he talks over her. This is so rude. When he loses, he says it was fun to give Nakhman stress and waste his time in court. It is a shame Konstantine did not take this case more seriously. If he would have paid attention, he might have learned something.
Please share your thoughts in the comments below. Thank you for joining me today.
Everything is okay in the end, if it's not okay, it's not the end.
- Unknown
Submit your favorite quotes and sayings to be included in future blogs!
No comments:
Post a Comment